Use of hydrophilic and hydrophobic polymers for the development of controlled release tizanidine matrix tablets

The aim of the present study was to develop tizanidine controlled release matrix. Formulations were designed using central composite method with the help of design expert version 7.0 software. Avicel pH 101 in the range of 14-50% was used as a filler, while HPMC K4M and K100M in the range of 25-55%, Ethylcellulose 10 ST and 10FP in the range of 15 - 45% and Kollidon SR in the range of 25-60% were used as controlled release agents in designing different formulations. Various physical parameters including powder flow for blends and weight variation, thickness, hardness, friability, disintegration time and in-vitro release were tested for tablets. Assay of tablets were also performed as specified in USP 35 NF 32. Physical parameters of both powder blend and compressed tablets such as compressibility index, angle of repose, weight variation, thickness, hardness, friability, disintegration time and assay were evaluated and found to be satisfactory for formulations K4M2, K4M3, K4M9, K100M2, K100M3, K100M9, E10FP2, E10FP9, KSR2, KSR3 & KSR9. In vitro dissolution study was conducted in 900 ml of 0.1N HCl, phosphate buffer pH 4.5 and 6.8 medium using USP Apparatus II. In vitro release profiles indicated that formulations prepared with Ethocel 10 standard were unable to control the release of drug while formulations K4M2, K100M9, E10FP2 & KSR2 having polymer content ranging from 40-55% showed a controlled drug release pattern in the above mentioned medium. Zero-order drug release kinetics was observed for formulations K4M2, K100M9, E10FP2 & KSR2. Similarity test (f2) results for K4M2, E10FP2 & KSR2 were found to be comparable with reference formulation K100M9. Response Surface plots were also prepared for evaluating the effect of independent variable on the responses. Stability study was performed as per ICH guidelines and the calculated shelf life was 24-30 months for formulation K4M2, K100M9 and E10FP2

The differential diagnosis of chronic daily headaches: an algorithm-based approach

Chronic daily headaches (CDHs) refers to primary headaches that happen on at least 15 days per month, for 4 or more hours per day, for at least three consecutive months. The differential diagnosis of CDHs is challenging and should proceed in an orderly fashion. The approach begins with a search for “red flags” that suggest the possibility of a secondary headache. If secondary headaches that mimic CDHs are excluded, either on clinical grounds or through investigation, the next step is to classify the headaches based on the duration of attacks. If the attacks last less than 4 hours per day, a trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia (TAC) is likely. TACs include episodic and chronic cluster headache, episodic and chronic paroxysmal hemicrania, SUNCT, and hypnic headache. If the duration is ≥4 h, a CDH is likely and the differential diagnosis encompasses chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, new daily persistent headache and hemicrania continua. The clinical approach to diagnosing CDH is the scope of this review